Outlook stormy for Obama

Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Published 15 December 2008

The inclusion in Obama's team of so many figures from the past heralds the continuation of the policies of the past, some of which, even among Bushites, were seen to be stupid

Hugh O'Shaughnessy doubts the Obama presidency will deliver any miracles

It gives me no pleasure to say this but Barack Obama’s presidency of the United States of America is likely to be a disaster. Not, I must hasten to add, so much for the citizens of his own country. But certainly for us in the rest of the world.

The bad habits acquired by the world’s most heavily armed state over the last half century have become so ingrained that the mere election of a man of mixed race for the first time - important as that may be for the USA - is not of itself going to change that situation for the better.

At the same time the assumptions made by the US people have become so fixed that they will not easily be shaken. Yet here I must confess that I really do believe in miracles. Perhaps that is because I live in a house with a garden where things grow and where seldom a week goes by without some horticultural miracle coming up and, so to speak, biting me on the bottom. I therefore hang on to the thought that a miracle could come about which would change the politics of the US.

At the same time I am not confident or even hopeful of such a development: I recall a saying of a wise man - whose name I have forgotten - who confessed his faith in miracles but added that he had never heard of a miracle which had cured stupidity.

The inclusion into the Obama team of so many figures from the past cannot but betoken a continuation of the policies of the past, some of which, even in the some Bushite quarters, were seen to be stupid.

Hillary Clinton, for instance, was a big presence in her husband’s government which distinguished itself for the depth of its bias against the cause of the Palestinians and their land.

Her presence at secretary of state promises no change at all in US attitudes to Israel: indeed Obama has already promised that much to the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

I have caught no word of criticism of, for instance, the present barbarous exercise in illegal collective punishment being meted out to the children, women and men of the world’s biggest prison camp, the Gaza Strip.

Obama seems to have forgotten – if indeed he ever knew - that the Palestinians must eventually be settled back in the land which was taken from them decades ago.

The good news now is that Obama will go the Middle East soon to deliver a speech: the bad news is that he is likely to do it in Cairo, seat of the Western-subsidised dictator and torturer Hosni Mubarak.

His maintenance in office of George Bush’s secretary for defence Robert Gates indicates no break with the crowd who lobbied for the illegal invasion of Iraq in the first place.

The president-elect is on record, too, as favouring the dispatch of more US troops to Afghanistan to achieve “victory” there.

Sadly no one in Washington has ever coherently described how that the impending defeat of the Western occupiers of Aghanistan will be avoided. No one knows how “victory” will manifest itself when – or, better, if – it arrives. All the above indicates that an Obama government will continue to be as deeply hostile to the Arab world and the Muslim faith as that crusader from out of the West, Bush, ever was.

Obama will be continuing Bush’s vision of the future of the Middle East which was launched amid what Noam Chomsky five years ago called “a display of hatred and contempt for democracy for which no precedent comes to mind.”

It is no wonder that Obama’s choice of officials is, according to the New York Times, being praised by Karl Rove, said to be the architect of Bush II’s electoral victories, and by Rush Limbaugh, a dyspeptic broadcaster from the US far right.

Despite a crushing government debt of US$11,000,000,000,000 – eleven trillion dollars - there is no sign an Obama government will give up the long-established but expensive military dream of “full spectrum dominance”.

This is the ability to destroy, and the declared intention of destroying, any challenge to Washington’s strategic pre-eminence, on land, on and under the sea, in the air and in space.

Nor is there any sign that Obama will junk the Bush government’s tendency to lecture the world on what it must do – “You effete Old Europeans, forget that the Turks shamelessly discriminate against Christians and allow them into your European Union forthwith”; “You wicked Somali Moslems, surrender to occupation by troops from your Christian neighbour Ethiopia. Washington has arranged and paid for it for your own good”; “You uppity Bolivians, give up chewing coca leaves as you have done for millennia, we don’t like it”; “You half-starved Latin Americans, buy our subsidised food exports though they bankrupt your own farmers”; “You Chagossians, realise that your land is our land now and that we need your island of Diego Garcia as a base to bomb Afghans and Pakistanis and perhaps the Iranians, too”; “You, Chávez, elected as you are, must not try to stay in office. The only people who have been allowed to do that are OUR friends, like the sheikhs of the Gulf, Augusto Pinochet and the Kings of Saudi Arabia”.

The trouble for the US is that, with its economy in intensive care and its foreign strategies widely rejected, foreigners are unlikely to heed demands like the ones above if Obama tries to continue outdated policies which the rest of the world dislikes.

Millions and millions of Muslims certainly won’t. With ever better international communications large numbers of people are naturally going to challenge the way Washington wants to rule the globe.

The Russians and the financially savvy Chinese and the increasingly self-confident Latin Americans are already challenging it.

The era of world hegemony by the US is passing and Barack would do well to acknowledge that fact.

But I don’t expect he will. And that way lies trouble.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

14 comments from readers

antileft
15 December 2008 at 14:40

Oh Hugh! I hurriedly skimmed your whole article and couldnt find anything about these multiple people who apparently "even among Bushites, were seen to be stupid".

Which people, hugh?! Just because you (a commie) happens to disagree with them doesnt make them "stupid"!!! In fact, obama has made a big deal of hiring only very smart, able people. Hey, I dont like most the people you mention either, but theyre not :stupid" and calling them so only highlights the low quality of your articles.

Shoddy, shoddy journalism.

martin sewell
15 December 2008 at 17:39

The redoubtable US columnist Ann Coulter has correctly identified a very real inclination amongst the left to fall into abusing its opponents instead of addressing the argument.

Calling people "stupid" in this way makes her point perfectly.

Is that a very good idea?

Carl Jones
15 December 2008 at 19:18

Hugh, i believe I was saying much of this over a month ago, with a Mossad agent running the Whitehouse.lol

The US economy is bust and has been for decades. But it survives using the same system of extortion from classical times. The PPT (plunge protection team) is hard at work. Against all market expectaions the $ is up (lol) and Gold remains on hold, when it should be approaching lunar orbit. A banker pointed out to me, that South Africa has more reserves than Britain.LOL

So we know its NWO business as usual in 2009. But don`t be fooled by the DESIGNED plight of Western economies, so lets keep it in context. in 1929 we had the Wall St crash. Like todays economic construct, it was likely an elite design. over the next few years we plunged into the depression years. Today, many would say the US, is in no position to make more WAR, I however, believe the US has NO CHOICE, but to make more war...BIG WAR and certain forces which appear to be potential foe (like Germany past), might also like the benefits of big and time protracted wars.

During the depression years, when US/UK workers were on their knees. Western corporations were pouring capital into the German war machine. The Bush family were deeply involved in this and like today, it looked financially unviable to fight the Second World War, but they did and as i have touted before, this war was another establishment construct.

YOU think YOU see the trick, deflation, but hyperinflation is coming and in todays context, that is official inflation at 10% +!

The NWO is juggling many balls, NK, Pakistan/India, Russia (don`t be fooled), Iran, Venezuela, China/Taiwan. They have a wide choice of constructs, but with 4 carrier groups on standby in the Med/Gulf region, this looks hot. As Joe Biden claims, Obama will be tested early on. it could be collapsing oil production, or DESIGNED pandemic, But they could use several unseen cards and all at once for maximum effect, happy New Year.LOL

josie
15 December 2008 at 20:50

Obama's promise of change, and then appointing the same old people, is typical of his 'bait and switch' style of politics.

He doesn't have the ability to lead from the front, having no clear ideology (or non-corrupt friends) himself, only the ability to take the ideas of other people and 'sell' them as his own. He seems to think these cabinet people will help him sell their ideas the best (being seasoned players).

Obama def won't want to admit the end 'era of world hegemony by the US' - he thinks it has just begun- Obama branded style!

I think he will use Clinton to be the hawk and to carry on the usual style of US politics, whilst he makes empty gestures to Muslims. Because of what happened in the Primaries (media bias), Obama thinks any foreign policy mistakes will be blamed on Clinton and not reflect in any way on him. This will be his downfall, if there is one. Moreover, Obama thinks that because he was elected with a Muslim middle name, that this represents the 'change' in US policy. In other words, his appointment should be a big enough gesture to make Muslims happy but I don't think so!!

His pragmatism and opportunism might make him the greatest leader of all time OR, his narcissism and his track record of saying one thing and getting away with another, might make him one of the most disappointing leaders of all time, once he starts getting down to the real business of governing (or pretending to).

writeon
15 December 2008 at 21:54

O'Shaughnessy isn't referring to stupid people in his article anywhere. He wrote about stupid policies, left over from the Bush era and even recognised by some in the Bush circle as stupid!

This is absurd. What kind of person draws attention to their inability to read properly? And then one makes oneself look totally ridiculous, brazenly foolish, arrogant and dumbly narcissistic, by actually triumphantly trumpheting one's lack of understanding and drawing attention to one's folly.

And "antileft" of all people, considering the names he calls other people, like a child in the playground, has the temerity and audacity to criticise O'Shaughnessy for using the word "stupid" in a perfectly acceptable fashion, in relation to policies, not people!

Then there's this Sewell guy glorying in his arrogance get's it wrong too! It's the policies, not people!

And to cap it all he brings up Anne Coulter of all people. The woman is arguably mentally disturbed, or else she's out to make money by pandering to the barely litterate. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Coulter rarely makes a rational statement or argument. I don't think she's capable of it. She is always attacking people using extraordinarily intemperate language, always going after the man not the message. God, she's famous for it. It's her style. She makes a fortune pretending to be an extreme, right-wing, entertaining, lunatic. And to actually use her as an example of probity truly beggars belief.

sweety
16 December 2008 at 02:08

I however, believe the US has NO CHOICE, but to make more war...BIG WAR and certain forces which appear to be potential foe (like Germany past), might also like the benefits of big and time protracted wars.

This pure Orwellian, writ large.

Jonty Stang
16 December 2008 at 09:19

Hugh, did you just drop a Pilger article in a blender and then fish it out?

pete999
16 December 2008 at 10:57

So, in short, that utter bastard Obama wont leave Afghanistan to the Taliban and will try and keep America the dominant world power, having the unspeakable nerve to try and keep the USA at the top of the pile in the face of an increasingly authoritarian Russia, a vicious Asisan dictatorship and the rather nicer, but fairly feeble internationally states of Latin America.

By God, what an unexpected turn of events! This was never once mentioned in the campaign!!

Is it just journalists who have a special filter that seems to block out what politicians actually say, then replace it with their own fantasies?

FreedomLand
16 December 2008 at 15:58

"Barack Obama’s presidency of the United States of America is likely to be a disaster. Not..... so much for the citizens of his own country. But certainly for us in the rest of the world..."

Its hard to respond to you, Hugh O'Shaughnessy, because your own ingrained assumptions about the US people have become so fixed that you have failed to grasp that which is in front of you in any realistic manner. True that there have been/arre so many human rights tragedies perpetrated by Amerika but it is not a miracle but their own self-created tragedy which will change things.

Or, more to the point, it is their realization that they are failing which is confronting them NOW and they are still a little in denial that it is really the end of their version of a thoroughly outdated world order which has been to the detriment of the world's other nations - except their European lapdogs - for the past 60+ years. Soon, every nation that has bought into the US global hegemony will become pre-occupied with their own collapsing financial order as a result of having thied their flags to the mast of a sinking Titanic, uhh.

FreedomLand
16 December 2008 at 16:07

Hugh O'Shaughnessy, it is not the election of a man of mixed race (actually, you mean a 'black man') for the first time which will change the situation for the better in the USA so much as it will for the rest of the world. It effectively signals the end of the old white supremacy and its centuries-old mindset. Thus it is the ludicrous Western white mans' dominating ideologies of the past 500 years which are now falling apart that is far more significant than any financial/economic recession/depression.

Within the USA, though, things are rather more complex and it has been necessary for Obama to include figures representative of the established order in his new administration for the very reasons of stability which have been so threatened by the foolish election strategies of the Democrats and the archaic hypocritically democratic American election process. Thus having Hillary Clinton AND the current military heads continue is an asset for facing the internal strife soon to come.

Thus the end has come for the progenitors of an invading culture and a rapacious and parasitic settler society - and as much for the USA as any other colonialist regime in the world today. That includes countries like Australia which, along with the fantasy state of Israel, have based their usurpation upon a "terra nullius" (empty land) dishonest ideology which is thoroughly repudiated by the advancing Asian, Arab/Persian societies who are once again returning to prominence.

gez pearce
16 December 2008 at 18:36

Antileft

”Oh Hugh!, I hurriedly skimmed your whole article and could not find anything about these multiple people who apparently even among Bushites (Is that a word) were seen to be stupid.

Which people Hugh? Just because you (a communist) happens to disagree with them doesn't make them stupid. In fact Obama has made a big deal of hiring only very smart able people. Hey, I do not like most the people you mention either but they are not stupid and calling them so only highlights the low quality of your articles.”

Yes but at least he has an IQ above 80 and is literate. I have changed the some of the grammar for you but the first sentence was a struggle.

Martin Sewell

“The redoubtable US columnist Ann Coulter has correctly identified a very real inclination amongst the left to fall into abusing its opponents instead of addressing the argument”

So Ms Coulter has never insulted or abused any of her opponents.

Jonty Stang

”Hugh, did you just drop a Pilger article in a blender and then fish it out?”

How old are you Jonty. Twelve

Is this the level of debate on this site. Very depressing.

It seems the only poster who can read an article fully and put together a coherent sentence is Writeon. Not surprisingly because he is the only conservative, with a small c on the site

Riaz Ahmad
18 December 2008 at 19:18

The people of USA have been for decades fed on daily dose of nationalism, almost rising to jingoism. Their minds are cast in self indulgence, consumerism and American exceptionalism. Too readily they believe in the myth of invincibility of their armed forces. With the exception of Europe, the Americans believe that the world is meant to serve imperial needs of America. While the Americans live in a pseudo reality of their own invention, Obama's cannot deliver anything other than a cosmetic change.

gnuneo
25 December 2008 at 06:29

superb article Hugh.

you know, looking at the World, one might be forgiven for thinking humans have the memory capacity of amnesia inflicted goldfish

how long ago was it that the USSR went down the crapper? And why?

because the leadership had dragged it into an expensive (and unwinnable) colonial war - against Aghanistan, as it happens - the economy had become far too centralised with decisions being taken in rigid hierarchies that prevented any real form of market economy, the People had lost faith in the leadership and general political system, and the political system itself prevented any form of change that was not colossal.

so colossal change is what they got.

but the US is in a slightly different position - the $ is the global reserve currency.

...for now. And the US will use force to maintain that.

but in the end this empire and its fantasies, dreams, genocides and grotesque untermensch imagining they are supermensch strutting the World as conquerors, will all come crashing down. What matters is how this - inevitability - can be made as pain-free for both the World, and also for Americans themselves.

Obama is little more than a public spokesman for a corporation, with the real decisions taken well above his head by the owners behind the scenes.

the irony is, the US has been turned into a war-machine by the very same people who have drained it of all its wealth*, are the multi-nats going to HIRE America's armies and fleets to maintain their global hegemony??

the US simply cannot afford to continue its wars - but it has very little competitiveness on civilian products.

the USSR collapsed so quickly, and so relatively painlessly, let us hope the US does not drag everyone down with it when it goes.

*http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&tas...

MaterialMonkee
07 January 2009 at 02:06

Obama's fine

I think Hugh O'Shaughnessy is just all upset about him not telling of the Israelis.

As disturbing as the Gaza conflict is, the ceasefire conditions that end it should put in place the foundations for the Palestinian state. Namely a UN peace keeping force.

With Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza pacified, the peace process should proceed fairly smoothly under Obama's watch.

Obama has promised to be non-idealogical, which is the opposite of Hugh O'Shaughnessy.

and that's a good thing

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker